New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1887-11-30
JUDGE DANFORTHS OPINION.
THE PENAL CODE DECLARED TO BE VALID.
| THE ERROR IN USING sHARPs TESTIMONY BnFoRR
TIE SENATE COMMTTEg-THR TESTIMONY

MENTAL OPINION.
Tie opinions of Judges Dantsrth and Pecsham an.
nouncing the decision Of the Court OF Appeals In the
case of Jacob sharp would cover II printed
in full. about eight columns Of The TRrB-
UyE. Judge Danforth. In his opinion.
proceeds with only few words Of Introduction
consider the principal questions raised by sharpa
lawyers the adnssiby OF certain evidence ut the
trial He fret touches upon the admission In evidence
against Sharp OF the testimony given by him before the
Senate ComSittee.
ut was conceded by tho prosecution" says Judge
Danfoh that ut the time he testified the defendant
before that mtteo under the operation and con-
pusion OF subpoena duly issued by the committee, and
that The testimony he gave was in response to questions
propoundod in their behalf Its admission on tho trial
objected TO the ground that II was given under
privileged circuns that the defendant was COM
PEELED TO attend and testify. and that evidence thus
scited was not co N peten upon the trial Of person
where the subject under inquiry Is that about heh he
was then interrogatsd"
Judge Danforth audes to tho provisions Of the Penal
Code especially OF Section 49, which he says declares
that % person offending against amy provision OF any
foregoing section OF this code relating 10 bribery is
competent witness against another person offending
and may be compelled to attend and testify upon any
trial. hearing. proceeding or investigation. in the Same
manner any other person. o. But IL declares. the
testimony given shall not lie used In any prosecution
or proceeding civil or criminal against the person so
tesifyng 81 aperson testifyng TO tho giving OF
bride which has been accepted shall not thereafter be
liable to Indictment prosccu ion or punish ent FOR that
bribery nd may plead prove The giving OF testimony
accordingly in bar OF such indictment prosecution"
| THE RURAL CODE NOT REPUGNANr TO THE CoS-
srITUToN.
The first question ION this appeals a. 10 tho
meaning and spirit OF the contained In this
ton (s-con 79). The appellant contends that by 1t the
disclosures made by him before the senate Committee
privileged and could not he used against him on
the trial now under review. and Of tho learned
sci the people comedies that this force might no at
trbuted the statute II 1t ware wholly valid enact
ment as he contends 1t not. and II the evidence
gves before the committee had not been entirely free
md voluntary (as he contends 1t was. Theses propo
sitions lilo the bottom Of tho controversy First Is
the indictment vahdl Tho eacd counsel for the pcsple
contrasts the constitutional provision that no person
shall he compelled in criminal case to be- witness
against himself article section 81. with the cempu
sorry words OF section 20. already quoted. aad pre-
nouncss to be the direct opposite of tho other
aud understand the argument IL Is that tho con
stituonal exemption absolute and complete. permit
ting to lock up the secret In hi,
own heart. and does not permit the evidence
no taken from him at all; that
this right Is intringed by tho provisions OF
Section 70. and that it IL therefore Invalid 1t Ia.
think. To this proposition that the
declares only that testimony given BY the
witness shall not be used IN prosecution or proceed
ing. civil against him. but that tho very
fact Of 50 testifyng may be plead in bar OF ndct
ment prosecution for the gyins Of bride which has
been accepted"
The opn.sn quotes this peint the dec sion OF tho
Court 81 AppoAl, tho OF Tue People rel Hack
leg " Ke..y - y Y. - AMI ,avs: 1T foloS. from
rendered that the provision Of the colo
which enbodics tho same conditions tho's thea under
consideration /. ia no rop grant to the consutu
ton"
WAS SHARP COMPELLED TO TESTIFY.
The opinion then deals great l~usth with the que'
ton whether sA.rp- evidence lofore Com
uLttes given o. his own fteo 0ii or by puisDa
dispo.rs quickly 81 tine assertion uy ole Of the counsel
FOR the prosecution that the resolution of tie -cnte
under which the committee acted and Tho nqu-tor o.
the committee Illegal void roccrl.ng-. and
thr sharp under comp'ison OF Law 10
ho present al thi- lnqIs.N"n 10 taEe ~ oath
70 te.tfy The appointment ~ the n'trc and t'
powers were not iuc-pn-' the court. and il
too late TO raise TO question here The car" q" lac
People rri. ~ Donald kroer 90 y. l.. i.3. Is
asa qsocI Establishing tie powers ~ legislative
csium.ttrr- no such ctscS
"As. therefore,. Judge panfonh confines. 1T cannos
be sad that the without power 10 csmP"
tdc witness AMI require Ms testimony, tic respondent,
nu@, mi elsewhere reasons. there any. sup
port the props-on hrt tao evidence vas ~ Niilins
witness. To end ~ further SAID behalf OF ihe
,plc that sharp by ing Ls privilege b-fers
heconnittrc waived Hui II tho comes withls tho
puryicw section = ,'upral Of TAT act. tho
subua ami TIE resolution of tie ~eu To wcrr coGnui
sory md Was uo, necessary the protection 81 the
witness he should ether o., deed word sther
defiance oocy the summons. refuse 10
answer the questions o. me niltee. n b. enough
he obi got by law 10 answer the iEIu.ry and he
could not h- r'1Uiici. IL orcr 10 gain Ia. Indemnify
which Oh. law aior edto 20 through the formIlfy
Of objection protest winch. however made, would
be useless"
After referring again to the Haohey and Thompson
case Judge Dauiorin says:
II that ,bc cyilence ~ sharp before the
committee gwen under the p-riltys o. commitment
inpri-onment contempt. and consequently that
It wa o"t'ned from him hy ,ompui,iou. 10 refuse Ia
witness guilty Of nisdo secs IS go
OF TIC Penal t0ic - FAR havr assumed the
be within The provision Of >oeioa - Of the Penal Code
supra
rnE NATURE or I'M SENATE INQUIRY.
Judge Daniorlh In rendering the decision Of Court
continues:
people the section 90 doe, nor cmtrlc. such
lny-'lS's bni o" ~. contrary J. To De limited To sueh
testimony Only ~ niSht be siven upon tu-. heari1g
proossdInE OF aEssu.Ailon ia the course 81 criminal
mizt be tho course Of legislative pro
cscdnt- or Investigations
After again quoting the kev.er case and rsciung the
Resolutions under when tho committee was ap
pointed, the opinion continue:
II apparent from thsir that the re,oluilons
which PERMITTED ia examination OF rhrrp irVoV-d al
,'fy r. ~ iEe #, ,r'rr ,, a.. I,. ,' ~ ~
Cissd might be curct by further action tho Logsia
nat,re was 10 h. pnr-tlrl for i, Is ft end anal ix
a. comprehensive and sufficient could provided
The occasion ant tho action ~ the isgslsiurs meet
suggestion OF the court in The 10
the preston 81 the leg Slave intent tho nlpn,
ton OF toe duty Of sbedisncs upon all persons should
he summoned to maze b. their e''im'ny The lnves,a
ton serve the is of public justice. |,
1HE CONorRUCfION or SECTION 10 q
or tho legislative intent Of sectoa 70 OF tao Peaal
Code the decision says I,
No have that thsro Is no conflict between the
VIII Of the Legislature expressed In mud &
the Constitution and Ne now 10 csn'rne that section
accordance WITH tho legislative iutsst In
fulI onecl Il To BIZ given 10 that stentOn and
bio fall force aud validity 10 every wsri part
be auuule OF rendered. uug2tsy. II be
that the - brought literally hin the
the section 40. rupral Shxrp psrnou on, milling
Of the specific Pevi>ions .f the
laiioR TO bribery he was nccused aud has
vlctsd Of giving bribe Ha therefore, a. allied
under that section G9l esnpslr,f
witness. Against whom Why, against another